|WikiProject Software / Computing||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Pornography||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
Please mention here why you feel the criticism section informing readers about a notable issue should be removed. I feel there is no reason not to include it, as it is discussed (especially with my new wording) in a neutral fact-driven way, with citations to a reliable secondary source. Any removal of this section should be discussed and defended in talk, or I will simply reverse the removal. As it happens, its been removed and re-added a few times. The last time it was deleted was by an anonymous user with a blank summary. That's unacceptable when there's been obvious back-and-forth as to its appropriateness to being included. Retran (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I removed it, not knowing it was previously removed. The criticism cited made no mention of Net Nanny. None. Further, the criticism was to content control software generally, and we link to that page, and it is discussed there, so efforts to push it into every related page are pure soapbox. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- The history of this article's edits are pretty short, and I usually start there when I edit and clean-up. I found it was deleted and added without any discussion even after being in the article for so long. At first thought, I figured its removal would mask notable and legitimate criticism, and since it was removed by an IP editor it drew suspicious of perhaps an edit by an individual with direct interest. Perhaps that is all unfounded. I'm not so sure that it so obvious that this criticism is "pure soapbox" so easily, as the issue represents a major circumvention in the purpose these products are purchased in the first place. Do best-of articles regarding products Wikipedia never contain criticism about a product-type in general on a product belonging to that type? I feel that would be a more simple rationale to use as to its appropriateness for inclusion, (not requiring eliciting intentions of the writing when its not very obvious).Retran (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agree, but this page is about Net Nanny, not about the issue generally. Further, on the page for the issue generally, the issue is discussed. Further, contributions to the issue should be made there. There are dozens of content control products. Imagine if each wiki page for each one repeated the same criticism section for the same issue generally. That's where the issue becomes soapboxy, when it starts leaking onto other pages where it does not belong. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a potential issue here with notability. Products like NetNanny might have been notable in the earlier days of the internet, but its not really much of a player at all anymore. Its hard to find any current coverage in the media on it, and even the older articles aren't very numerous. This is a private company, and mostly one of the "has-beens". Filtering software that is installed on the end-user machine has fallen out of favor replaced with solutions that are integrated into the OS, or solutions that are further up the line (ie: on the firewall device). I will probably nominate this in AfD in a week or so if I hear nothing in this talk section. Retran (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting comment, but it was one of the first and it is still going. It is definitely notable, even given what you said. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- It appears the article could use to be expanded, not deleted. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- PC Mag, just last month, said, "Net Nanny remains our top choice for traditional parental control with a strong focus on distinguishing between reasonable and inappropriate activities." I suggest if you bring the AfD, it will be defeated. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling--Why do we need to state multiple times the "developed by ContentWatch, Inc. that runs under Microsoft Windows and [[Mac OS X]". It seems like multiple references as to its compatibility is a plug for the product, unnecessary filler, etc, when there's not much else to write about NetNanny. Also, it is not just "intended" for websites, it is intended for multiple internet services (most important is websites, but also IMs, etc) and this is backed up in secondary sources (such as the review you deleted when you wiped the Criticism section).--Retran (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Also the reference to an otherwise obscure parent company (ContentWatch, Inc.) is just a plug for an otherwise obscure parent company. The company that owns NetNanny certainly I'm sure enjoys the promotion they get to other more expensive products linked to content-control, etc, due to the notability NetNanny itself has. But none of their other products have wiki pages, and neither does the company. They're not just notable because they are involved in the legal structure that markets a product with a Wikipedia article. Looking at their website, there's not much else to that company. Ie... do we explain the boring legal holding companies involved in each article involving a product? All this aside, its already listed in the infobox. Shouldn't that minutia of detail just be listed there without re-emphasis in the article text? --Retran (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling: I don't understand why a reference to software marketed to parents filtering certain material which is "objectionable" is POV (which I wont bother to argue with, but seems a uncontroversial parents would find certain material objectionable kids) but a pretty obvious promotional reference to a trivial award given out by a magazine. Please explain---Retran (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Dunno. I only see it once. I do not see multiple instances. And you are not suggesting we do not use the name of the product's manufacturer, are you? What you do say sounds soapboxy, sounds like you have a personal animus against the company for some reason. You seem to go out of your way to knock the product again and again. I took your word, did a search, and found PC Mag said just last month the exact opposite of what you are saying. I have no dog in this matter, but you knock the product and PC Mag raves. To Wikipedia, PC Mag is a reliable source and you are original research.
- What did "PC Mag" say the "exact opposite" of what "I said"? I don't have "a dog" in this either. Please stop unfoundedly insinuating that I do.
- Oh -- the infobox -- nah, that's not repetition for repetition sake. The infobox is intended to be a shorted repetition of what is in the article. Kind of like a summary.
- Objectionable. Who's to say what's objectionable? The way I reworded it gets the same point across without saying anything is objectionable. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- While its true that the specifics of what content is "objectionable" vary greatly from person to person at any given time, the idea being discussed in the article is what the product is marketed/intended for. NetNanny is marketed to parents to filter content the parents would find objectionable, and its hardly a controversial idea that parents would find some content objectionable for their children. It might be controversial the means by which they are blocked, but that doesn't keep us from listing notable software that filters such content. Either way your change is a decent clarification, but it doesn't fix any POV problem. --Retran (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- PC Mag is not "trivial." It and PC World are major sources of trusted information. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, here is other software also listing the manufacturer: DansGuardian. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think I mentioned this below, but its worth adding here for clarity. DansGuardian page is still rated stub quality, and is not a necessarily a given that its a yardstick to measure article quality against. There tends to be issues NPOV in these small articles on small companies/products, and this is well known.--Retran (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Why would it be "soap-boxy" to refuse to include the non-notable corporate structure? They have no corporate page, and no other notable products (notable as in wikipedia notable). Espeically here including the corporate name seems to only promote that company. If something is included and it just serves to promote something (however true a fact it might be) its inappropriate and an NPOV violation.--Retran (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Dude, here we are discussing this while you are wiping it out "(removing reference to obscure magazine promotional award in intro)." PC Mag "obscure"? A "promotional award"? You are so wrong factually and so impolite in making your edits while discussion is actively underway here. I'm going to revert your edit for those reasons, among others, and strongly urge you to continue to discuss them here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I should remind you that you've wiped out a carefully rewritten intro that I have to ask after the fact to explain. As you've taken action before without discussion I had no idea you were discussing it in talk. I find it quite inappropriate and a blatant POV violation to lavish a product's article page, especially its introduction with magazine awards. These awards are handed out for promotional purposes and should be pretty much ignored. Even though such awards are certainly citable, only the content of the review is notable, appropriate and trustworthy, but definitely not the magazine awards. Look at the Lexus page. Or any of the prominent higher-quality articles on products. They never include listings of awards, even the ones that they have received that might be the most notable of awards.--Retran (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Based on your behavior on this page and on my own Talk page, I am now certain you have some kind of soapbox. I'll keep working with you, but the sooner you get off the soapbox the better. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I find your behavior is leading to unindented consequences. I'm simply trying to clean up this article, as it looks like you are. You wiped an entire section without (you admitted yourself) looking at the history to find it was controversial, and then (the obvious next step) remarking on the Talk page right before your edit. You are violating basic Wikipedia etiquette by making this kind of accusation. I suggest we should be dealing with the individual problems in an article rather than making sweeping personal generalizations. --Retran (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Also, please see Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith regarding your accession towards me, as it will help you when dealing with this kind of problem in the future.--Retran (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It was completely unintentional that I wiped out your Award section while you were discussing it on the talk page. No matter what my reasons were for wiping it (explained above and below), I apologize . I figured since you added something so significant without discussing it first that you didn't intend on elaborating. But I was wrong, my apologies.--Retran (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Another, very strong and simple reason that the award paragraph is an NPOV violation, is that it gives undue Undue weight to the award, in comparison with the rest of the article. Just because its hard to find more notable information on this product doesn't mean we should cite just anything. Also, if you look at the best-quality articles with tons of info, they never list awards in the intro paragraph. (Lexus is a good example. it receives a billion magazine awards a year, and doesn't have any listed in the intro. but it used to a couple years ago) --Retran (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- My remedy is described to whom its marketed (which is typically notable for notable software products) and to describe broadly this product's features. "It is marketed primarily at parent as a way to control a child's computer activity. It allows a computer owner to block and filter Internet content, place time limits on use, and block desktop PC games."--Retran (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- My remedy is to remove all references to any types of content, any adjectives placed on the content that perhaps might be blocked/filtered... in the interest of keeping it neutral. If this removes an emphasis that is justified (such as an emphasis on pornography) let me know. But I don't read that its an emphasis on the products website, or on the PC Mag reviews I have read.--Retran (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Referring to it blocking "...Internet websites" is also problematic. Like almost any content-control software, it very inaccurate to state its intended for , its actually intended for any internet derived content and service. Perhaps a technical parse of this sentence wouldn't mean exactly that as it does say "intended", but it leaves a lot out. Its poor quality to imply (through exclusion) that's the only type of content it blocks. --Retran (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- My remedy is to state "...to block and filter Internet content". It's probably not important to list all such sources of content NetNanny can manage (web, IMs, games that connect to chat, etc). As I've clarified this distinction in a previous edit which was reverted, if an editor wants to not include filtering capability of NetNanny in the intro, let us know WHY--Retran (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
4. "block access".. blocking and filtering are two related, but very distinct things, and such differences would be important to a lay-reader. Filtering means the content arrives with certain pieces of information missing, blacked out, etc. Blocked means a user is unable to perform an intended action. On a filter example, when a user visits a website with words tagged by the content-program to be filtered, those terms would be replaced with X's, or removed, etc. On a block example, a website containing terms tagged by the content-program. Take the term 'Dick' for example. If a content-control app is filtering 'Dick', "Dick went to school" would become "Xxxx went to school" or "[removed] went to school", etc. But in blocking mode, the same website containing "Dick went to school" would be replaced with "This page has been blocked by SuchAndSuch Protection Software" or whatever. As one can see, Blocking and Filtering result in vastly different outcomes in terms of end-user experience.--Retran (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- My Remedy: "[allows]...computer owner to block and filter Internet content" addresses both blocking and filtering. I feel it would be poor quality to imply this product only blocks access, when it has notable filtering abilities as well.--Retran (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I will list the problems I find in the intro sentence. "Net Nanny is content-control software developed by ContentWatch, Inc. that runs under Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X."
1. ContentWatch, Inc. is secondary in notability to NetNanny. If this were a product of CocaCola or Toyota, it might be important to list the mark/brand/corporation. But this is a case where a (as of now) notable product was bought by a not-very-well-known company. We make a mention of this company later on. But we don't always list the parent companies, etc, in the intro setence. Those can be complicated legal situations that aren't necessarily important to a reader. Take General Motors intro for example. It states "General Motors Company, also known as GM, is a United States based automaker with headquarters in Detroit, Michigan.", it does not state the legal name of the holding company, etc. Its just not very impotrant in the context of an encyclopedia article. Even if the corporate names and holding company legal names are listed on other products articles, I would argue they are typically listed improperly. The best-of articles do not do this. They might mention it later in acquisitions section, reorganizations section. It seems these short artciles on small companies and niche products list the name of the legal company because that's some of the only information to be found on places like Hoover's, etc. But that doesn't mean we should be employing the exact text of a Hoover's listing, Hoovers is a secondary source but not an encyclopedia, its purpose is collecting and describing the details of a business.--Retran (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- remedy, I'm removing the reference as the name of the current company holding that apparently holds distributing/development/ip rights (we don't know the details, as such details are typically kept purposely hidden in private companies) to this product IN THE INTRO. But it's use later in the acquisition section seems appropriate.--Retran (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2. the phrase "that runs under" is kinda awkward. While the "run" a program might nowadays make sense to most readers as referring to operating a program, the "under" part will not be so clear, and might even confuse a non-technical reader as to what the "runs" means. I'm asserting that to "run a program" would make sense to non-tech readers, but "runs under Linux OS" wouldn't make sense to users without special computer technical knowledge. It might not require much technical understanding, but its definitely more than the average computer user possesses. I would think most users comprehend the meaning "compatible with" which is more descriptive anyway, but that might be kinda long and tedious in an intro sentence.--Retran (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- remedy: and I'm replacing it with a more pithy "for" under the philosophy that if you can say the same thing in less words, its best to do so.--Retran (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Remedyto say "is a line of content-control software" might be a bit to promotional sounding, so I'm stating "is a brand" as its descriptive and neutral.--Retran (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
As a start, in the interest of article quality, I have rewritten the list in prose, as this is preferred method of content. The list format also took up alot of physical space, thus it placed undue empahsis on that section when its not specifically justified that we do that. --Retran (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The flaws section in it's current state doesn't seem at all correct. Especially "turning the protection levels up can drive someone insane" and "The outcome is often a friendless, antisocial child who has no knowledge of the real world. Multiple child suicides have been linked to NetNanny..".
I've searched but can't find any evidence or articles to support either one of these claims?